Many organizations, which see that as an excellent key to enhancing safety performance, are now engaging in far more recent discussions as well as appreciation in human & organizational productivity systems called HOP. HOP’s premise would be that human error seems to be inevitable and also that organizations may decrease the impact of human error by promoting defenses that reduce risk by better process management and analysis.
This is why companies could even build a robust management system by comprehending how employees carry out their daily job and afterward fully comprehend whatever the errors or gaps in the system are, as well as close the gaps through so-called defenses.
For HOP, the conversation is essential and perhaps most important to achievement. In order to understand in which a failure, as well as loss, is feasible, active learning is necessary. It involves looking based on previous loss events, reviewing the current situation when mistakes are armed and ready to be made, and identifying specific jobs which encourage the chance of loss.
HOP deals with experience as well as communication as well as seeks to understand the data collected and insights provided by the most proximate people in the workforce, the workers who identify circumstances of error even though they experienced them.
Its other dimension of HOP, probably best known, would be to understand and identify mistakes but instead regulate them or remove them through a safety management strategy. A system-based security approach utilizes tools to identify, analyze as well as control risk and just not merely dangers in management and engineering. Through such a procedure, human factors, as well as organizational characteristics that may threaten defenders and increase the risk, were also identified and addressed.
What is essential would be that HOP is not a program; it is an enhancement process that improves over time with the growth of trust in the organization.
Basic Principles of HOP Adopted by HOP Practitioners
In view of these principles, it is appropriate to modify our reaction to a culture of understanding so if losses occur from either a culture of blame. Deviation throughout the work system will happen, and we’ll get something about what we’d anticipate at times.
People are working in systems, and these systems must be appropriately protected from human mistakes. These principles promote an understanding that this really provides operational intelligence to accept information from diverse sources, which could, in turn, be employed to develop additional control.
Using HOP improves the participation of management and employees to help companies learn from their experiences. The door opens for more efficient control levels by increasing knowledge of the risks that lie in the working system. The concept of a gradual partnership of management and workers wanting to work together for their own health and safety is supported through a cumulative as well as an integrated approach that reduces the potential for loss.
HOP: A Efficient Systems Approach
Security often focuses on individual machines or even the actions of individuals without placing them in a broader context. Human & organizational efficiency follows a systems approach. This platform is based on “systems” thinking.
Changing the Philosophy for Safety Management is Not an Easy Job
Transformation is often complicated and often has been resisted. It is because we sometimes have mental models, which are also recognized as schematic schemes, that we can’t identify how they have been wrong sometimes, how those who restrict us, as well as how they help stop us from seeing suitable outcomes.
And it will not be easy to move from the existing philosophy of safety management to one which embraces the HOP principles. But it’s going to be valuable.
Design System According to the People who Can Make Mistakes
You may not even be surprised that people aren’t great. You can’t do it. You’re making errors. In reality, people are almost always making “errors” (especially errors throughout the sense of a “divergence from the expected result”) if you stop to think about everything.
This is Conklin’s way of saying:
People make mistakes. People are wrong, and even our best make errors.
Professional safety could be comforted that while inherent failures are not caused in some instances by safety disasters. However, on the reverse side, as well as sometimes they do, and we already know this.
But many work safety efforts are commonly problematic even though they appear to be established to make people great. The risk of human error is removed from the equation, with humanity removed from people.
This is the example of such a textbook to swim upstream; to plug a thumb into a deck and hope against hope.
It is an argument that we will definitely fail in our own effort if we try to “create” people and make them unfailing. (Funny remark: the attempted “safety evidence” is intended as a failure of fallible people in order to avoid loss.)
It is believed conversely that we must begin by supposing that people are making errors and building systems that are strong and resilient enough just to soak up the errors without disaster. The HOP focuses on techniques and human behavior in a working environment.
Safety is linked to learning directly. As already pointed out, organizations must learn from employees. They must learn from all manner of variations, such as the ones that do not have significant consequences.
They are not just a safe organization when an organization would not be a learning organization. More probably are incidents, such as damage to property, diseases, injury, and deaths. Since learning lies so closely linked to safety, human as well as organizational performance is aimed at helping organizations.
This is how Conklin means putting the difference between job “as scheduled” and operate “as carried out” at a specific moment in his research book:”